What follows is not meant for the "fans" on this web site: meaning those who have chosen a candidate and follow his or her campaign the way I do the Red Sox. That is how I approach baseball, rooting for the team I first latched onto when I was six years old, growing up in Massachusetts. It is not how I follow presidential elections, especially this one.
The Red Sox are my team, come what may. I have followed them through a lot of thin and am enjoying this period of thick, but my interest in them has nothing to do with national policy. I hope that they win, but I have survived their losses.
In presidential elections, though, especially this one, I do not have the luxury of picking my "team" and sticking with it come what may. If I got to decide who would be president, but was required to choose from those who hold or have recently held public office, my first choice would still have been Senator John F. Kerry, then Senator Edwards.
But that is not how it works. As I tried to explain to the many, presumably youngish folk, who seemed personally offended when I noted that the voters in my party had reached a different conclusion than had I, and had narrowed my choices among those who could actually get elected president to Senators Clinton and Obama, my vote is not simply a statement of my personal views. It is intended to actually join with the votes of other people to achieve the only end that matters in this election: a president who is the nominee of the Democratic Party.
Faced with the choice before me when I voted in the New York primary I chose Senator Obama for reasons I have explained. I remain pleased with my vote and my choice and events since then have only confirmed what I thought then: that what a presidential candidate says that he or she "will do" if elected is nonsensical in a republic, since they are not running for emperor but to ake charge of the executive branch of a government with many parts. What I want from the president, then, is someone who will inspire us to give of ourselves for our country, for our fellow citizens and for the world we live in. The most likely person running for that office who can achieve that goal remains Senator Obama.
To do that, though, he needs to get elected. What we all should have learned from the 2000 robbery, and from the 2004 "swift boat" nightmare, is that asking broadcasters to act responsibly, and for Americans to cast their votes based on reason is as effective as spitting into the wind. What all of us need to keep in mind, more importantly, is that this wonderful country of ours, an inspiration to millions around the world even from the moment of its establishment by political idealists, was nonetheless born with its own original sin in slavery and, though we have progressed remarkably from that time, especially in the last 45 to 50 years, its effects still dominate our politics. To ignore this, to demand that the effects of a racism built into the fabric of this nation, be ground into dust, as it should have been and should be, will not achieve what we want, any more than hoping that gravity can be overcome sufficiently to allow us to all fly to work and alleviate our energy problems.
There is no need to go over this familiar ground, so long as its binding truths are recognized, even as we push and push to overcome this life-long disease of ours. The stunning comparison of the electoral maps from 2000 and 2004 with the ancient lineup of states and territories as aligned during the Civil Warconfirm this horrible truth and pretending it is not so does no service to anyone.
This is, of course, what is behind the Reverend Wright "issue," the claims that Senator Obama is a secret Muslim ("I have no reason to believe he is") or "Manchurian candidate," a friend of Louis Farrakhan, or whatever other piece of nonsense is put out there to legitimize a vote against Senator Obama to claim it is not about race. When "Negroes" were lynched in our not too distant past, their attackers did not usually concede it was race that was motivating them: it was instead some artificially created concern, such as the safety of "our women" that required murder.
But, and this is the big problem, while condemning this racism, I cannot ignore it. I can conduct my life so as not to permit racists to govern me in most of what I do, because, for instance, the issue of whether I socialize with black people does not mandate the consent of many others (except the black person who has to agree to socialize with me).
Electing a president, however, is not one of those things. To do that, I need allies: lots of them and I am forced to get those allies from a pool that dos not see these issues the way I do.
Hence, my cold feet. Last January, I asked what I thought then was a provocative question hoping that this site could answer in a decisive way for me. As idiotic as it is to quote oneself, the question as put then, needs to be repeated in roughly the form it was asked because it has still not been answered for me in a way to seals the deal.
So the question is:
can a black man, even one whose mother was not, even one who grew up in, of all places, Hawaii, actually be elected president in 2008.
I hope that is so, and I hope so to the core of my being. I have lived through the greatest change in the attitudes of this country toward race that has ever taken place, one that has completely changed the political face of this country in so many fundamental ways, most good, some not (the South is now solidly Republican instead of disgruntled, but reasonably dependable Democratic votes), and yet, and yet, even based on things which appear in these progressive pages, let alone in the comments of and the hearts of people throughout Iowa and the rest of the country, there is no denying that we have not reached the day when people are judged "by the content of their character" which remains a dream almost 40 years since it was first described to us.
A friend of mine, a wise woman not easily stampeded into her opinions, very quietly told me yesterday that she thought the nomination of Sen Obama was the only hope They—the Republican party--- had. Her concern, which on calmer reflection, is one I now share, is that people say one thing, but do another and the mantra of his [un]ususal name and his race—as idiotic as this is, as repulsive as this is, will secretly buoy the Republicans and get them custody of the White House for another four years.
Do not forget that the current president was elected once, and got close enough the other time to steal the office, based as much on such important things as "even if you don’t agree with him, you know where he stands," "he’s the guy I would want to drink a beer with [except that as an alcoholic, he can’t drink]," and "at least he doesn’t windsurf," or "speak French" [or English for that matter], "wear clothes selected for him by a consultant", etc. People who decide who should be president based on this fluff, are not trustworthy.
I refuse to allow this to decide my vote; I just ask the question because I am looking for reassurance from someone who reads this and can calm my concerns. Yes, yes, I know and do not reject the idea that anybody who would not vote for Sen Obama because of race, would not vote for any Democrat, but I am looking for something more, because I have a vision of a very, dirty, secret campaign, here in the country founded on freedom, except that in certain states human beings could be held as slaves, and with all our progress, still has not gotten over its truly horrific consequences.
I repeat that my interest in this election is not for my candidate to win but to elect a president from my party. If that incidentally moves the country forward on race issue, great. But that cannot be our goal. I have not abandoned Sen Obama's candidacy just yet, but I will not be moved by what I think to be the right way to think, or what the people at DailyKos think is the right way to think, but what I think to be the likely way a majority of our citizens will view his candidacy.
Many of them are really stupid. They thought, for instance, that GW Bush was an acceptable candidate for the office and they are easily swayed by what they see on cable television. I wish that were not so, but it is. It is hard to ignore the vast difference in results between the caucus votes where one as to vote in front of one’s neighbors and primary votes where a person need not wear a sheet to vote like a klansman.
It will be difficult for any Democrat to lose this year, but as noted above, this country has struggled with slavery and its aftermath for its entire existence. We have made enormous progress, particularly since 1964, and since the mid 1990s have even seen what appears to be a light at the end of this long tunnel. But we have not yet reached the promised land, and to insist that we have, and take a chance that we have in an election which threatens the very existence of the Democratic party and maybe even more, is getting scarier and scarier every day. I just am not sure whether this is the thing to do.
If the sports fans on this site and elsewhere could stop bashing Senator Clinton on this idea that doing so helps to elect Senator Obama, a degree of rational thought would allow them to see how much better a president she would be than Senator McCain. I am at the point where I have to consider whether asking the country to elect a black man is asking more from it than it can accomplish and focusing on the getting Senator Clinton elected.
© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
Privacy Policy
Powered by Scoop.
Permalink | 38 comments